2011 M3 ZCP vs 2011 GT
08-31-2010, 05:11 PM
#141
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by QUIKAG,Aug 31 2010, 08:12 PM
tarheel, you are really getting into the technical specifics of which only a very few people actually give a crap about. The primary reasons for this whole comparison are for:
1. entertainment value
2. to show that the Mustang GT now runs in the same realm of overall performance as the M3 which is quite impressive
I completely disagree with you that fastest lap isn't indicative of a car's performance. Who is to say that most fastest laps come after running many, many slower laps? A fastest lap is how fast a car can run a lap when just about everything comes together just right all at the same time over the course of that one lap.
Lap averages are more driver-centric and show how consistent a driver can keep a car near it's best lap after lap after lap. Professional drivers can run right near "fastest lap" lap after lap after lap. That is what makes them professionals.
At a few tracks around DFW, I've put up some pretty impressive single lap times, but my lap time average is much slower for a multitude of reasons: traffic, driver fatigue, car fatigue, tires getting greasy, brakes fading, sloppy driving, not following proper lines, etc.
But, the fact my car can still throw down a single great lap shows that it has great performance POTENTIAL. That is what most people care about.....what their car COULD do in the right hands, in the right conditions, when everything comes together just right. Most will never be able to exploit their cars full potential anyway, so why would they care about much else than their car's POTENTIAL performance?
You need to go back into your engineer world and do a bunch of testing and statistical analysis to make yourself feel better because you're like a wet blanket around here IMHO.
1. entertainment value
2. to show that the Mustang GT now runs in the same realm of overall performance as the M3 which is quite impressive
I completely disagree with you that fastest lap isn't indicative of a car's performance. Who is to say that most fastest laps come after running many, many slower laps? A fastest lap is how fast a car can run a lap when just about everything comes together just right all at the same time over the course of that one lap.
Lap averages are more driver-centric and show how consistent a driver can keep a car near it's best lap after lap after lap. Professional drivers can run right near "fastest lap" lap after lap after lap. That is what makes them professionals.
At a few tracks around DFW, I've put up some pretty impressive single lap times, but my lap time average is much slower for a multitude of reasons: traffic, driver fatigue, car fatigue, tires getting greasy, brakes fading, sloppy driving, not following proper lines, etc.
But, the fact my car can still throw down a single great lap shows that it has great performance POTENTIAL. That is what most people care about.....what their car COULD do in the right hands, in the right conditions, when everything comes together just right. Most will never be able to exploit their cars full potential anyway, so why would they care about much else than their car's POTENTIAL performance?
You need to go back into your engineer world and do a bunch of testing and statistical analysis to make yourself feel better because you're like a wet blanket around here IMHO.
"We have no idea how the set ups wear on tires and suspension components. We have no idea how that "fast" lap affects the next lap or what it depended on in the previous lap (i.e. the lap could make the next lap slower or require a lower lap time on the previous lap so you could come past the start line at the highest possible speed)."
Your fastest lap could easily be due to taking a late apex on the final corner of the previous lap, that, while slower over two laps, will help the next lap seem faster. Or, you could brake late into the final corner and likewise be slower over 2 laps, but that one lap will seem faster because you gained speed on the previous straight (counted in the lap) and lost it on the next straight (only half counted in the previous lap). You see what I'm saying? That could easily shave off a second or two. And what if you're dampers aren't tuned right, so you might get lucky one lap and have it work perfect but most laps it doesn't behave the way you expect once or twice (dampers don't behave linearly under racing conditions unless tuned properly, normal dampers honestly look downright random if you look at a graph). If you're only going to do a single lap, at least pick a median one.
Let's be honest, these cars have similar power to weight and reasonably close tires. The difference between the 2 cars on a 80-90 second track will never exceed a few seconds. In terms of objective performance, that's huge, but we won't really know how they compare from something like this.
I'm all for experiencing a car yourself and making a decision based on how much you enjoy the car. The subjective far outweighs the objective. However, magazine racing and the comparisons that people make forever after (and treat them like law) are really annoying to me.
08-31-2010, 05:32 PM
#142
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by QUIKAG,Aug 31 2010, 05:12 PM
tarheel, you are really getting into the technical specifics of which only a very few people actually give a crap about. The primary reasons for this whole comparison are for:
You need to go back into your engineer world and do a bunch of testing and statistical analysis to make yourself feel better because you're like a wet blanket around here IMHO.
You need to go back into your engineer world and do a bunch of testing and statistical analysis to make yourself feel better because you're like a wet blanket around here IMHO.
First you suggest we need a decently large amount of data, now we only need 10 laps? Get it together LOL. The fact that you bring up statistics in itself and then resort to only using 10 data points is laughable.
You're wrong. Averages don't mean shit in racing/competition. Nobody competes for the best average, they compete for the BEST TIME.
I'm with JakeJeweler- resistance is futile.
You're missing the entire point of this article and arguing because you don't want to admit you're wrong. Have fun!
08-31-2010, 05:48 PM
#143
Originally Posted by JakeJewler,Aug 31 2010, 04:25 PM
QUIKAG, you fell into the trap buddy.
True, I did. Okay, going back to the sidelines. 
08-31-2010, 06:28 PM
#144
Originally Posted by exb00st,Aug 31 2010, 07:32 PM
You're wrong. Averages don't mean shit in racing/competition. Nobody competes for the best average, they compete for the BEST TIME.
- The driver w/ the lowest single lap time,
- or the driver w/ the lowest average lap time
Yes indeed, averages count for a whole lot in racing...average speed, average lap times, etc. Find me a winner, and I can show you how his average statistics helped him win.
08-31-2010, 06:44 PM
#145
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris S,Aug 31 2010, 10:28 PM
Who's going to win the Indy 500, out of all who make it to the end?
- The driver w/ the lowest single lap time,
- or the driver w/ the lowest average lap time
Yes indeed, averages count for a whole lot in racing...average speed, average lap times, etc. Find me a winner, and I can show you how his average statistics helped him win.
- The driver w/ the lowest single lap time,
- or the driver w/ the lowest average lap time
Yes indeed, averages count for a whole lot in racing...average speed, average lap times, etc. Find me a winner, and I can show you how his average statistics helped him win.
10 laps is a decently large amount of data, and a t test works fine with 10 data points and will create reasonably small ranges assuming there's not much variation.
08-31-2010, 09:24 PM
#147
Originally Posted by tarheel91,Aug 31 2010, 01:30 PM
Did I cite Top Gear for numbers? No, I was simply illustrating a point with an opinion they'd held. The sophistication necessary to make a car both sporty and luxurious is not free. It costs money. It also costs money to make a car look luxurious (inside and out).
In regards to the other half, you claimed I said if you were looking for fun you wouldn't see the value in the M3 and I thus implied it was boring. That was clearly not the case. I said if you were only looking for fun its value wouldn't be clear. However, if you're only looking for fun, I can introduce you to some $40k race cars that have a weight/power ratio of about 4lbs/hp and will embarrass both of these cars on any track. Something tells me that's not what you're looking for, though. Fun isn't the only thing you're consider, and the same is true for many other people.
Also feel free to expound upon my "lack of reasoning." In my experience, when someone says that without backing it up, they simply have no counter argument but don't want to admit they were wrong.
In regards to the other half, you claimed I said if you were looking for fun you wouldn't see the value in the M3 and I thus implied it was boring. That was clearly not the case. I said if you were only looking for fun its value wouldn't be clear. However, if you're only looking for fun, I can introduce you to some $40k race cars that have a weight/power ratio of about 4lbs/hp and will embarrass both of these cars on any track. Something tells me that's not what you're looking for, though. Fun isn't the only thing you're consider, and the same is true for many other people.
Also feel free to expound upon my "lack of reasoning." In my experience, when someone says that without backing it up, they simply have no counter argument but don't want to admit they were wrong.
What I was getting at was that you criticise people using things from the automotive media because of the lack of credibility, I then pointed out how hypocritical you are since you used an opinion from top gear as some factual evidence. Or are you failing to see my point?
What, does top gear own all the cars they test, have a proven record of unbiased reviews, are all engineering elite?
To take a page out of ur book (queue your denial of this), what are we aruging over? Did I ever say the mustang was a superior car? Did I say I'd choose the stang over the m3 given a choice? Did I say it was a superior track car? The diference is that I can say no to all of those questions and don't have to resort to proclaiming being misunderstood. Did I also not say that I for one like the m3? So what are you arguing over? The dollar for dollar value of the car? You're gonna try and quantify the financial value of a luxury good? Whay, tell everyone these objective results are all misleading because the sample isn't big enough and the testers don't have credibility, and then use the opionion of top gear to bolster ur argument?
09-01-2010, 07:35 AM
#149
An open letter from Tarheel to the Redline Time Attack Series:
Dear Redline Time Attack Series,
You're doing it wrong. Low lap times = teh gay. Please average all of your lap times from all prior events and declare new winners accordingly. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Warmest regards,
Tarheel
Dear Redline Time Attack Series,
You're doing it wrong. Low lap times = teh gay. Please average all of your lap times from all prior events and declare new winners accordingly. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Warmest regards,
Tarheel
09-01-2010, 08:27 AM
#150
Originally Posted by Mr.E.G.,Sep 1 2010, 09:35 AM
An open letter from Tarheel to the Redline Time Attack Series:
Dear Redline Time Attack Series,
You're doing it wrong. Low lap times = teh gay. Please average all of your lap times from all prior events and declare new winners accordingly. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Warmest regards,
Tarheel
Dear Redline Time Attack Series,
You're doing it wrong. Low lap times = teh gay. Please average all of your lap times from all prior events and declare new winners accordingly. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Warmest regards,
Tarheel
What about F1, IRL, NASCAR, ALMS, MotoGP, WSB, SCCA/NASA road racing, (and I could go on and on) that do not award wins to the racer w/ the lowest lap time, but the